On the entire issue of 'koshi', 'gamaku', 'hara' and such, the concepts can be discussed separately, but in use the entire body is a unit. I think their relevance depends on the structure of the training program to try and isolate areas for specific training than it does that they can function independtly.

There are different alignment structurs for different systems and likely different approachs for different levels of training.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having beginning training using different structures than advanced training.

A different answer is that of Wu Tai Chi Chaun. The teaching form first studied uses larger and perhaps more complex technique to work on the body principles, but the fast form, with the same over all structure, uses smaller movement prniciples with the suggestion the larger training built the interior technique for the smaller technique.

before the creation of this thread, I was asked 'whats with the leaning?' from non-matsubayashi practioner(s)...and I couldn't answer. I think we've agreed that the slight lean is for power generation.

now it's a question of whether the lean is a training tool towards a common goal (for learning the feeling of proper gamaku/koshi, hip power/mechanics). or is the 'sinking lean' itself a fighting principal.

many times (almost all classes), at least once during practice the sensei will have the class 'overexaggurate' a particular movement in order for your body/mind to 'feel' it.

so my question is in advanced Matsubayashi...does it just 'feel' like you are leaning forward, or do you actually lean forward?

I realize at this stage in my training I'm actually taught to physically lean-sink. but I'm curious if this is gradually replaced with more the 'feeling' of that exaguration?

see, I think of all systems of Karate as ways to learn the same thing. The 'sink-leaning' method vs the 'rooting and centering' of goju - in the end both have accomplished a common goal...in this case the efficient coordination between upper and lower body.

In advanced practice there is no lean, nor is there any feeling of a lean, only a feeling of being centered and "sunk in." Due to the structure of the stance when one sinks it may only "appear" to be a lean when the spine is acutally perpendicular to the pelvis. Which is tilted slightly when sinking. There is a fine line between having a straight back and your power being "deadlocked." There is always a projection of the hara in a way, which is another way of saying there is always a potential for movement even in stillness. At advanced levels the lean detected is that potential. Very difficult to explain, let alone do properly. Very few can and do.

Im not going to represent any one style with my views, as im losing faith in 'different' styles, systems maybee but we each have our own 'style' after a few years training.

when I started I was taught the standard double hip, pull back, drive forward. big movement. (think reverse punch is best)

then i progressed to the triple hip, pull back, drive forward, pull back. Basically the whip principle. it became much smaller movement, far more 'impact'.

then I incorporated tilting the pelvis forward, making the spine straight and 'sinking', with slightly bent knees. which I now believe is proberly the start, during and finish position, with hips square ish.

Now thats alot going on in reality and all I can say is that the power generation method is alot smaller than when i started and relies on correct isolated muscle tension and relaxation as well as body structure.

Re the off balance theory, im working on that and am on the fence, so I train as i was taught which is keeping a good centre and moving with from the hara,

However my understanding is that zenkutsu dachi is 'front leaning stance' im fairly confident that small leans are involved and stances just stop us falling over, this puts a whole new aspect into body movement and power generation.

what also supports the 'lean' method is whenever I naturally try to put force or energy into something, think pushing or dragging then I lean into or away from it and use my body weight, again an interesting slant on karate mechanics, this maybee a significant difference between budo and bujutsu if you catch my drift.

thats cool and interesting...but we are drifting....which is ok, just hope we don't get lost

I think my question has been covered. In comparrison, goju has mostly a vertical center of gravity...in order to do this, goju stances 'tuck in the buttocks' - which in effect, aligns the top and bottom body angles. (straight up and down)

Matsubayashi has a slight tilt forward (hara projection is at a front angle, almost as an invisible 3rd leg)...this no doubt gives a better weight transfer into the target, but maybe at the expense of something else...maybe not. there isn't much linear retreating philosophy in Karate (except with off-balancing), so why not take advantage of that fact. forward tilt seems like a sound principal, the reason it doesn't look like it makes sense is because I might be looking at it from the logic of sparring principals. When sport sparring, you want to be able to spring in any direction. In self-defense, you need forward and forward angles. Goju is about holding your ground and attacking in place or to the side - let the attacker come into your space. There is an exception in goju and that is the notion of off-balancing an opponent by stepping back and at back angles.

Matsubayashi Ryu might be more 'proactive', hence the hip-tilt towards the line of attack.

In any event, whichever particular flavor and which angle they have you position your hips...there are some principals in all OMA's which hold true reguarding this topic:* upper and lower torso need to be aligned.* The 'will' to move originates from your hara. also acts as an invisible 3rd point of contact...in gymnastics, this is your center of gravity and centrifigal center when in motion.* gamaku (driven or rather 'triggered' by hara) controls the speed and force of koshi (hip twist).

no...it's good. sometimes to only way to see something is by not looking directly at it. which is what victor was warning me of breaking things up into parts too much. -I have a habit of breaking problems up into smaller peices....problem is, sometimes I just end up with a broken answer.